Charlie Stross: Publishers "Cutting their own throats"

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I didn't. A bookstore you can't even *browse* without a $500 piece of hardware? No chance it's ever going to dominate the market. (Notice how Apple's never released any info about what kind of sales the ibookstore has.)

Oh, Apple's ibook sales have been miserable, there's no question.

But almost all of the articles from the first half of 2010 are about how the Kindle won't be able to compete with the iPad (at that time, the Kindle 2 cost $260 and the DX was only $10 cheaper). And Apple did, of course, dominate the digital music business, its iPhone was wildly successful...and the iPad looked to be a great new product.

So people weren't irrational to think that Apple would be a huge new presence in e-books...it was hard to imagine that they wouldn't be, much less that they would end up basically a footnote. And certainly the press was filled with questions about how much the Kindle would lose to the iPad.

However, as it turned out: (1) most heavy readers seem to prefer e-ink; and (2) while the iPad has sold far more devices than the Kindle, most people don't seem to be using their Ipad for much reading.

Some of this is because Amazon reacted so quickly - the iPad came out in April, and 4 months later Amazon announced the k3 - $140 in its cheapest incarnation, *and* with an improved screen. Plus Amazon pushed to make its apps ubiquitous, including on the iPad.

iTunes took over because anyone could access it through their home computer, not just through their iPhones. And because it works well as a music library--none of the ebook store/device software does that, because they're all caught by the format problems.

Yeah - especially when it first came out, iTunes was so much better than the competition that it was almost ridiculous.

[stonetools]

Amazon is dominating and is continuing to dominate, because it was the first to market with the complete ebook solution-the store and consumption device in your hand. Ibooks , as the fourth or fifth to market , was, in retrospect, always going to struggle-especially since it allowed competing stores on its device. Apple doesn't really care that much- ebooks are just one of many services that it offers on iOS. Without agency pricing, iBooks would be even further behind, as would be everyone but Amazon. You should note that Mr. Stross is not a fan of Amazon. See Comment #7:

I really dislike Amazon -- not least because they've delisted my books three different times now. I don't think they care about the quality of the fiction they sell; what they care about is making money as a retailer, same as WalMart. Fact is, the books are a commodity sourced from a variety of competitive sole traders; if they can force down supplier wages and get the product cheaper, they'll do exactly that (and not lose any sleep over it). And because being a writer is something many people dream about, there are a lot of souls out there who will do it for free if they have to.

I reckon once Amazon break the Big Six, they'll be in a position to make the authors an offer they can't refuse -- Amazon's terms, or the road. And the terms will be a lot less favourable than the current 70% of net that everybody is mesmerized by.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Oh, Apple's ibook sales have been miserable, there's no question.

But almost all of the articles from the first half of 2010 are about how the Kindle won't be able to compete with the iPad (at that time, the Kindle 2 cost $260 and the DX was only $10 cheaper). And Apple did, of course, dominate the digital music business, its iPhone was wildly successful...and the iPad looked to be a great new product.

So people weren't irrational to think that Apple would be a huge new presence in e-books...it was hard to imagine that they wouldn't be, much less that they would end up basically a footnote. And certainly the press was filled with questions about how much the Kindle would lose to the iPad.

However, as it turned out: (1) most heavy readers seem to prefer e-ink; and (2) while the iPad has sold far more devices than the Kindle, most people don't seem to be using their Ipad for much reading.

Some of this is because Amazon reacted so quickly - the iPad came out in April, and 4 months later Amazon announced the k3 - $140 in its cheapest incarnation, *and* with an improved screen. Plus Amazon pushed to make its apps ubiquitous, including on the iPad.



Yeah - especially when it first came out, iTunes was so much better than the competition that it was almost ridiculous.

You forgot the most important reason why the Apple doesn't sell any books --- their DRM hasn't been cracked yet. It seems almost as if they want their bookstore to fail, it makes no sense whatsoever. If they just quietly leaked a solution their sales would go up 100 fold. They want to fail on purpose, the whole excercise was just to help introduce agency pricing for the publishers?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You forgot the most important reason why the Apple doesn't sell any books --- their DRM hasn't been cracked yet. It seems almost as if they want their bookstore to fail, it makes no sense whatsoever. If they just quietly leaked a solution their sales would go up 100 fold. They want to fail on purpose, the whole excercise was just to help introduce agency pricing for the publishers?

Although it might make some difference at the margins, I don't think that many people strip DRM. I'm not even sure how many people know that e-books have DRM.

[leebase]

The Kindle with the same sized screen COULDN'T compete with the iPad at only $10 cheaper. And had the 6" kindle stayed at $260 instead of dropping to $79, it's likely Amazon wouldn't have a quarter of the sales of Kindles that it's had.

But never was this about whether iBooks would dominate Amazon. Amazon has a kindle app on the iPad. It was about single function, and expensive, eInk devices verses multi-function tablets.

With prices of the eInk devices under $100....they are fairly safe from the $500 iPad.

Frankly, I thought it was the smartphone that would hurt the $260 eInk devices the most. I've been wrong, it appears, on how many folks would think reading on their phone was good enough. At $79, these eInk readers are a "both and" option, pretty much ending this debate.

Lee

[tompe]

Originally Posted by leebase

Frankly, I thought it was the smartphone that would hurt the $260 eInk devices the most. I've been wrong, it appears, on how many folks would think reading on their phone was good enough. At $79, these eInk readers are a "both and" option, pretty much ending this debate.

Yes, I read on my Kindle at home during the evening. And on my phone before sleeping and during the day at work. And it is reading in the phone I would not like to loose. I can live with not reading on the Kindle. Before I bought the Kindle 4 I read on my iPad 2 instead.